|
The
practice of removing the name Baptist from Baptist churches has become
increasingly popular. It seems that more and more Baptist churches are opting
for displaying a generic name even though they may retain a legal title (as a
not-for-profit organization) with the name Baptist in it. Some Baptist
organizations are encouraging this as a way to allow the churches to advertise
themselves as a nondescript church without jeopardizing their relationship to
the organization or the state.
There
are still some negative connotations from Baptist history. Yet, only a few of
the many Baptist groups throughout our history have actually believed, for
example, that only churches with the name Baptist are real churches or that only
believers in Baptist churches are the bride of Christ (known as “Baptist Briders”).
The insistence on the name Baptist has rather been due to a long and good
history of specific Biblical doctrine that categorizes a church as a Baptist
church. The great Southern Baptist Greek scholar of a century ago, A.T.
Robertson said, “Give a man an open Bible, an open mind, a conscience in good
working order, and he will have a hard time to keep from being a Baptist.”1
Andrew Fuller, associate of William Carey in eighteenth century England wrote,
“If the first fruits of our zeal be laid out in making proselytes to that
denomination, however right the thing may be in itself, the Lord will frown upon
us, and leave us. But if we be mainly employed in making men Christians, we
need not fear but they will be Baptists.”2
So why
are many Baptist churches removing the good name from their signs and
literature? I hope to address six areas of concern that I hear or read from our
Baptist brethren, and also to add some reasons why I think it is Biblical to
retain one’s descriptive name. I have been as adamant against this new trend as
anyone and often feel churches are doing this merely for expediency or even for
fear of criticism and I am sure that is true of some. But I also think there
are reasons given for removing the Baptist name that need to be thought through
and answered. One thing upon which I know all Baptists agree is the
independency and autonomy of each local church to make their own decisions
before God. With Baptists there are no denominational headquarters that can
dictate these things to local churches nor should there be undo peer pressure.
Let every church be persuaded by its own doctrinal convictions and then be true
to those convictions outwardly as well as inwardly.
1. “Many people are
turned off by the name Baptist.”
This
is a reasonable consideration seeing that believers ought to “give none offense,
neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. Even as I
please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of
many, that they may be saved” (1 Cor. 10:32-33). But here Paul is speaking of
partaking in questionable practices and of flaunting one’s Christian liberty
with little regard for those who are observing. There is a world of difference
between suffering for wrong-doing and suffering for the truth’s sake. We should
avoid every action and situation that offends unnecessarily. But the cross,
explained by our Christian doctrine, will offend and often must offend. Paul
wrote to the Galatians, “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I
yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased” (Gal. 5:11).
There
is no real reason for an unbeliever to be offended by the name Baptist except in
his own mind. To acquiesce at this point only removes the opportunity to teach
doctrinal truth and answer his own objections to Christianity. If we retreat
from the challenge at this point, when do we stop retreating? Do we quit
singing Christian songs also? Do we cease to pray when lost people are
present? Do we not give invitations because lost people really don’t like
them? No. As with one’s own children, the time to begin the education process
is immediately, in this case, at the door.
Besides this important teaching tool for unbelievers, we should remember that
the local church is first and foremost for the family of God. The name means
important things to knowledgeable Christians. They deserve a straight-forward
statement from a church they are about to visit.
2. The legal name is
still retained.
As I
noted, many Baptist churches are removing the word Baptist from their
advertising but retaining it in their legal documents. This resembles a stealth
tactic which many businesses use that operate with one name but are actually
owned by an unknown source. Cults have typically used stealth tactics to get in
the door of unsuspecting people and then later explain who they really are. The
honest citizen would rather know the source up front. It ought to be true that
what we say publicly is what we really are. If, therefore, a church changes
what it says publicly, then let it also change what it is telling the government
privately.
Is a
name change true to the church charter and constitution? Would the original
signers of these documents think the same way? Should we be “originalists” with
our founding documents or more “fluid” in our interpretation? I think
experience shows that this approach does not foster the original intent of the
church but rather weakens it considerably. I remember an Assembly of God
church, in a town where I pastored, that dropped its denominational name when
it relocated. The church grew larger, but in a short year or so you would have
been hard pressed to find anyone in the church who knew that it was still
(legally) an Assembly of God church much less what Assembly doctrine really
was. Perhaps someone who can’t publicly live with the legal name of the church
ought to seek one where he can.
3. Denominational names
aren’t in the New Testament anyway.
This
argument is not taken lightly by Baptists. We firmly believe that the Bible is
our sole authority for faith and practice. Many now are thinking that the whole
history of denominational names has been a mistake. We first ought to reflect
on our modern way of thinking. Obviously, hundreds, even thousands, of years of
great men and women have not agreed. Are we really in such a time that we can
be much more objective and biblical than they?
I have
always objected to those who not only drop the name Baptist but also drop the
name Church. How can one reject a denominational name because they don’t think
it is in the New Testament and then also drop the very description that is? I
never liked the word Temple for a church, much less Family Center or Happening!
As a Baptist I have always thought it a great advantage that we have the name of
our church used in the New Testament when it describes John “The Baptist.” It
literally means John “The Baptizer” and that is exactly what Baptist churches
have always meant by it as well!
The
idea of “denomination” only means “the act of denominating” or listing. What is
unbiblical about listing, in any way we can, the beliefs or actions of the
church? Aren’t we to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 3)? If our name
properly denominates our faith, then we should earnestly contend for it, not
carelessly remove it.
4. There are so many
kinds of Baptists that the name is meaningless.
With a
little reflection it seems that this reason will be discarded. There are many
careless people wearing my family name, but it won’t help clear the name if I
abandon it as well. The best way to clear the name is to use it proudly and
properly. The Baptist name has a rich history of good and proper use. Of
course it has its enemies, but more from a hatred of truth than from a disgust
with Baptists in particular.
It is
not going to help Christianity in general to lose denominational names. Past
generations were better off when they could kid one another, laugh at one
another, go to their own denominational churches, and still be good neighbors.
They were better informed and religiously educated when they had to learn these
things. Denominational names tell you up front what “kind” of Christian church
it is, which is honest and forthright.
5. People today don’t
know and don’t care about these names.
I have
never understood, if this is true, why we would feel the need to change
anything. Some might argue that since the postmodern movement began, people
have liked the retention of older and original things. And for those who don’t
care, well, it doesn’t matter anyway.
Again,
we are not better off by passing up this opportunity to instruct in a good
thing. Why have we dropped words like “Ebenezer” from our song book? Are we
better off because we have? No! We’re not better off but are more ignorant.
We have opted out of our obligation to teach a Biblical word and concept because
it was too inconvenient for the adults and parents to insist that the younger
generation learn some things they didn’t know. Churches are often held hostage
by their own laziness. The same thing is happening by finding excuses not to
teach our denominational heritage (regardless of one’s denomination!). It is
not that our Baptist name has been tried and found wanting. It has been found
difficult and left untried.
6. We are entering a
whole new era of “doing church.”
Are we
really in such a new age that denominational names no longer function or carry
valid meaning? The answer will always be “yes” from the unbelieving world. The
believing world may answer “yes” but they don’t mean it. Labels have always
been necessary and they will continue to be. Whether Donatists, Montanists,
Anabaptists, or Dissenters, the world has always found a name for religious
groups. God has made the human mind with a need to organize and categorize
information. I remember when “Bible Church” was intended to be a generic name
but now it has become its own denomination. We may call a church “Purpose
Driven” or a “Willow Creek” church but we do it for a reason, and that purpose
is to denominate what we see with what we know. At least the older names gave
descriptions of doctrine and polity (Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian)
whereas today’s names usually are reduced to methodologies (Seeker Sensitive,
contemporary). But they still will serve the purpose of denominating churches
into understandable groups. “Emergent” churches have been the loudest critics
of denominational names but they would be nowhere without the denomination
“Emergent.”
But is it Biblical?
Surely
we would agree that it is not Biblical to take our direction from the world. We
cannot seek the Lord’s will and the world’s blessing at the same time. This
should be a “given” to believers. It is Biblical to be apologists, always
looking for an opportunity to give a reason for what we believe. It is Biblical
to be evangelists, quick to use our resources to preach and to teach in places
where the lost do not understand. It is Biblical to be sound in doctrine, and
the denominational names are an open statement about what we believe. It is
Biblical to endure hardness as good soldiers of Jesus Christ, not avoiding
ridicule from the world when it comes because of the Word of God and the
testimony of Jesus Christ. It is Biblical to earnestly contend for all of our
faith, not merely being content to speak of the common faith. It is Biblical to
let our light shine before men, so that they may see our good works and glorify
our Father who is in heaven.
If we
are to be relevant, then let us be Biblical! Let us use every tool we have in
our arsenal for proclaiming everything that we believe. If someone feels there
are times and places where speaking less and being less forward has a place,
surely it is not in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth!
Notes:
1. Quoted by Everett Gill,
A.T. Robertson: A Biography (New York:
MacMillan, 1943) 181. Gill is quoting ATR from his book
How To Make Baptists.
2. Michael Haykin,
The Armies of the Lamb: The Spirituality of
Andrew Fuller (Dundras, Ontario: Joshua Press, 2001) 194.
| 
